The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

Fuck you and your gun too. If you wanted a job that required a high security clearance, you'd have to pass a polygraph test. How is applying for ownership of a deadly weapon any different in principal?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

and how do you determine raging pathological psychopaths anyway?

that's a diagnosis that's usually made only when it's too late, like after somebody's eaten their moms liver for breakfast

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

Remy, was the VT shooter ever judged to be a "raging pathological psychopath"? Were the individuals who supplied the Columbine kids?

not to my knowledge. but that doesn't mean a massive number of other gun crime perps wouldn't be.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:00 (nineteen years ago)

How many, remy?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, I realize that, but you've got to start somewhere. Eventually, the screening would be retro-actively applied to current licensed gun owners - or we could just wait a generation until they age off the books.

-- o. nate, Friday, April 20, 2007 1:55 PM (1 minute ago)

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

I think the suggestion about attacking the manufacturers/market is a better move. As Justen points out, it wouldn't affect the bazillion guns currently in circulation, but it could conceivably keep the problem from getting *worse*. Guns do age and become ineffectual, albeit over a long period of time. Perhaps it would be best to take the long view and apply legislation now that would have more concrete ramifications several generations from now.

many x-posts

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

raging pathological psychopaths was hyperbolic. i thought that much would be obvious. but the point stands: why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns? suicidal depressives? convicted spousal abusers? those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years. i'm precluded from giving blood because of the time i spent in England. i don't consider it "invasive" to take my medical history, i consider it prudent.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

this thread has taught me nothing except that gun collectors are giant harmless nerds who probably just like to shoot at photos of Saruman. also, maybe there should be a slightly tighter screening process on those who have already been noted as being a danger to themselves and others at some point in the recent past. at this point i don't think we can realistically do anything about the guns out there considering there millions of them out there, with probably hundreds of thousands unaccounted for by any governing body.

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

A) How exactly would you find these people to retro-screen them, how willing would they be to voluntarily submit to this, would there be punishments enacted if you were caught unscreened, etc. etc. logistical nightmare.
B) It's going to take a lot longer than a generation, given that guns don't have a shelf life, and people are allowed to will them to their kids, because they are possessions, after all, and often worth a lot of money.

No one's saying it would be easy. But who are we as a country if we can't face difficult challenges every once in a while?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not calling it hard, I'm calling it impossible.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

remy, is correct, there IS a powerful and overwhelming body of evidence that households where there is a gun and a history of domestic abuse tend to end in fatal shootings, ditto households with drug abuse

i don't know though, maybe you *already* can't get a gun if you have drug convictions or domestic abuse complaints agianst you.

so maybe instead of going for stricter gun control we could look at factors that exacerbate gun violence and work on those?

i am sure even the libertarian in roger wouldn't in theory argue with more federal + state funding for outpatient therapy for drug + domestic violence criminals?

who knows, this might be a worthier challenge than making guns illegal

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

why can't the state/federal government screen high risk candidates from the purchase of guns?

It already does. It just is not, generally speaking, as invasive as you're hoping.

Define "high risk."

convicted spousal abusers

Already on the list and denied ownership. In fact, if you get a restraining order put on you for domestic violence, the police can (rightly) confiscate your guns in the meantime.

those who have been institutionalized for X number of years out of Y years.

Can't remember if that's actually part of the background check, but it is one of the questions asked on an ATF form (and thus a federal crime to lie about).

suicidal depressives?

What other things should clinical depressives be denied? Cars? Knives? Medicines?

261, milo. how should i know? don't be a jerk about it.

I'm not being a jerk - you're throwing out that lots of gun violence is perpetrated by high-risk 'psychological' targets - I don't believe that to be the case and have yet to see anyone show that it is.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

Haha seriously, how come nobody here is getting all Nugenty over the fact that I've been issued a special second-rate license on which the government dictates that I'm not allowed to drive without my glasses on?! Why are they all up in my private myopia issues??

I'm not sure we need vastly expanded gun-purchase screening, though -- we'd do better with stricter enforcement of the types of screening we already have. (The only way criminal-history scanning fails is that a lot of the warning-sign crimes -- like threats or domestic violence -- are interpersonal crimes where people drop charges or things get plead down, and so there's no concrete record of trial and conviction.)

Hahaha Nate one of the funny truths of the gun-control conversation is that you just don't dream of taking away weapons people already own, because there is some very small wacko percentage of them who are not kidding about the cold dead hands, and they are, umm, armed. (Please do not interpret as a slur on the non-small non-wacko percentage who'd be indignant but not get all Ruby Ridge about it.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

glasses dont kill people nabisco, people kill people

― Mr. Que, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:09 (nineteen years ago)

if a lot of gun violence is not being perpetrated by high risk types, that's even more depressing w/r/t society

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:09 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.reedsway.com/charlton_heston2.jpg

guns don't kill people, soylent green is people

― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

sorry

― Milton Parker, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

"Guns do age and become ineffectual, albeit over a long period of time"

Another wild claim stated as absolute truth! Has ILE always been this factually challenged or have I been sipping too many Long Island Ice Teas in the wee computer hours?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

Hahaha Nate one of the funny truths of the gun-control conversation is that you just don't dream of taking away weapons people already own, because there is some very small wacko percentage of them who are not kidding about the cold dead hands, and they are, umm, armed. (Please do not interpret as a slur on the non-small non-wacko percentage who'd be indignant but not get all Ruby Ridge about it.)

Well we don't have to go pry the guns out of their hands all at once. This could be phased in gradually over a relatively long period of time. It would start by issuing a new class of gun license for people who have passed the screening, eventually the old classes of gun licenses would be phased out and people would have to apply for the new kind. If they refused, then, well, they'd be unlicensed. We wouldn't necessarily send the police to confiscate their guns.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

maybe you *already* can't get a gun if you have drug convictions or domestic abuse complaints agianst you.

this is indeed the case. Enforcement is a huge issue here though - funny that that's a common tack of the NRA, to argue that there's already plenty of laws that just aren't being enforced properly. Which is totally true, but the argument is used to misdirect the debate away from the possibility of enacting any additional laws.

and yes manalishi I know what the fuck I'm talking about with old guns - no one holds up a liquor store with a cap-and-ball rifle for a reason.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

(cap and ball MUSKET I should say)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

"i am sure even the libertarian in roger wouldn't in theory argue with more federal + state funding for outpatient therapy for drug + domestic violence criminals?"

In Roger's America, heal thyself, friend.

Or, you know...get a rope. Either way.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:13 (nineteen years ago)

LOL same to you, buddy

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (nineteen years ago)

Old weapons do age, but generally only become ineffective due to use. A modern rifle or handgun will outlast us all, and probably our great-great-great grandchildren, if it's not being shot regularly.

Haha seriously, how come nobody here is getting all Nugenty over the fact that I've been issued a special second-rate license on which the government dictates that I'm not allowed to drive without my glasses on?! Why are they all up in my private myopia issues??

As John said way way back - your driving privileges are (legally) more akin to the ability to carry a loaded firearm on the street. In which case you will be tested and given restrictions.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (nineteen years ago)

I've said this a bunch of times already, but there is a distinction between "license to operate" and "license to purchase", and certainly "license to own", and as long as people keep flipping back and forth according to the point they're trying to make, we'll all keep circling the same things again and again.

Which is going to happen anyway, but at least it'll be more interesting to read my way.

xpost uh shakey, you might have missed my point earlier re: high power shooting and an unmodified model from 1913, but maintained guns don't wear out.

xposts yup, milo is right.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:14 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.reedsway.com/charlton_heston2.jpg

I has a gun
I has cold hands
I has need bullets
?

― StanM, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:16 (nineteen years ago)

in terms of "ineffectual" I was thinking more of how weapons tend to get regularly outmoded by, um, deadlier weapons.

Like 50 years from now the standard, most effective weapon for killing people probably won't be a handgun.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:16 (nineteen years ago)

you know like no one is using unmodified rifles from 1913 to wantonly murder people, commit crimes, etc.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:18 (nineteen years ago)

Presumably the new class of gun license would also be checked any time someone wanted to purchase ammo. So people with the old kind of license would eventually not be able to purchase ammo.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:19 (nineteen years ago)

Haha dudes I was mostly just being funny about the DMV vision test, but if your response to that is "driving is more like carrying concealed weapons," does that suggest you're fine with psychological testing and opening medical records for c&c permits, or telling people they have to have psychological testing in order to get them? (That's a genuine question, BTW, not a rhetorical one.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:19 (nineteen years ago)

I've never had a psych or medical test for my driver's license. I go up, put on my glasses, and look in the little vision box.

A Texas concealed handgun license is quite a bit more stringent than that. 8 hours of classes, a shooting proficiency test, fingerprints sent to the state police and the FBI for background checks, etc..

My father's got held up for three or four extra months because he'd been arrested for fighting in California. In 1967.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:22 (nineteen years ago)

I may be mistaken about this, but I don't think ammo has as long as shelf-life as a gun, so the license-check on ammo part would help to address the legacy gun problem.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

I wouldn't use old ammo.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

Milo you've been tricked: that little vision box is an eye test! It is secretly assessing whether or not you have untreated DIZEEZES of the EYE and BRANE! RUN!!!

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:25 (nineteen years ago)

Nope, ammo doesn't last quite as long. Problem is, you can make it yourself, so that won't work either.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:28 (nineteen years ago)

You can't make it from scratch, you need to purchase certain things like primers, gunpowder, casings, etc. These would also require a license check.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (nineteen years ago)

jesus christ, who knew guns were so boring?

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (nineteen years ago)

I still haven't seen any statistics on the number of gun-related deaths caused by mentally unstable people.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:29 (nineteen years ago)

ORLY? I wonder if anyone already has any of those things? I wonder if the casings are reusable? Primers and powder, properly stored, last for a long, long time.

xposts

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, shit - polygraph tests?? For INNOCENT people? Pardon me, but fuck you.

1) polygraph tests are completely useless at anything besides getting people to confess shit

2) everyone in america having their records accessed or being questioned by police is INNOCENT until conviction

― and what, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:31 (nineteen years ago)

I still haven't seen any statistics on the number of gun-related deaths caused by mentally unstable people.

Err, isn't – excepting immediate and inarguable self defense / accidental firing – the act of pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger an unstable act?

― remy bean, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:33 (nineteen years ago)

Any, John J, sure there's going to be some dead-enders who stockpile gunpowder and bullets and so on in airtight, temperature controlled chambers so that when the One World Government comes to stamp the Number of the Beast on their foreheads they'll be ready to stop it like true red-blooded patriots. No solution is going to get rid of every single gun- but it doesn't have to to make a difference for the better.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

Dude, tons of people reload and really wouldn't enjoy being characterized that way, and they'd be completely right.

― John Justen, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

1) polygraph tests are completely useless at anything besides getting people to confess shit

Such as whether they might be purchasing the gun with the intent of killing scores of innocent people?

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

o. nate, there are also people who shoot a lot (for fun) and want to keep costs down. Buying primers in the thousands at a time isn't unheard of.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

Err, isn't – excepting immediate and inarguable self defense / accidental firing – the act of pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger an unstable act?

The contortions involved there aren't even worth responding to.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not talking about everyone who reloads, I'm talking about the people in John's scenario who would refuse to be psychologically screened and would stockpile their (illegal) guns.

― o. nate, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

oh great now there's some shooting thing goin on at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

Oh boy. How about ammonia, nate? Can I still buy that without turning my head and coughing? Robitussin? How about that? Do I need to submit to fingerprinting for that?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.